To think that society would not be immensely simpler were women denied the right to vote and own property

And I’m supposed to be bothered by your objection? Wht do you consider the EA out of date? It protects everybody. Or are you saying it should be amended to give sone groups more rights than others?

No, you're still not getting it, it's not about trying to stop you discussing what you think or feel about the law - go for it, absolutely, please do - but you can't put aside how the law actually works in practice which is that to want the part overturned that White and presumably you wish to overturn has to mean by extension overturning the rights of women, homosexual people and women with trans identities. That isn't limiting your right of expression, that is the reality of how the law works that we're talking about.

To get what you want for men, you have to sacrifice the legal protections for those women, homosexual people and women with trans identities. It is not possible to change that law without destroying the protections for those other groups, that's what the judgment was about. So the question is how you feel about the removal of those protections and whether ethically they would be fair collateral damage compared to the gains for those men.

The SC decision doesn’t need to be “overturned”. However, it’s perfectly clear that the EA is out of date and parliament needs to enact better legislation. Which they certainly can do.

I object entirely to your framing of the substantive issue and consider it deeply transphobic.

@tandora as @TheOtherRaven says, if the SC judgement is overturned (hint it can’t be), and RMW is allowed into women’s spaces, as you support, them all those other groups lose their rights and protections. So you seem to be, saying the wish of males to enter female spaces should be of more importance than protecting those other groups. Why?

Ah I don’t know. Last I checked we lived in a democracy where it was considered appropriate to discuss and debate the appropriateness and sense of matters of law. (That public discussion being regarded as mattering immensely).

The reason for White kicking off is a desire to overturn the judgment, in order for him to use women's spaces.

Which would mean removing protections in law for women, homosexual people and women with trans identities, because you cannot do one without the other.

I'm sorry, it's absolutely all one and the same thing. Do you really not understand what you're supporting?

I'm afraid it doesn't matter whether or not you agree, that's how the law works.

I don’t agree with anything you wrote, but regardless of what you or I think of the SC judgement and its ramifications is tangential to the discussion being had on this thread, which was about the point being made in this article and the comparison being drawn to removing the voting/ property rights for women.

Well no, obviously it isn't.

The SC judgment found as it did because unless sex means birth biological sex, the law is incoherent and its protections no longer work for women, for homosexual people and for women with trans identities.

To wish to overturn or change this to let men get into non consenting women's spaces means you want to destroy legal rights and protections for women, homosexual people and women with trans identities, because you cannot do the one without doing the other. Did you not understand this?

But er…. Those were in the judgement and you said the judgement was a shit idea? So you seem to be saying transmen, transpeople and homosexuals should not have the protections laid out in the judgement, or is it only a small area of the judgement that you find a “shit idea”.

Eh? That’s got nothing to do with anything I wrote lol.
As wonderful a straw man as the OP.

So @Tandora you don’t believe transmen should have maternity and abortion rights? You don’t believe transpeople should be protected under the PC of gender reassignment? You don’t believe homosexuals should be protected from discrimination? Why? What is hateful and bigoted about these judgements?

@BungeeCord (“what point do you think the article is trying to make)

This is the point being made:

Life isn’t simple
With respect to the Supreme Court, if you try to make it ‘simple,’ it just will not work.

There’s a reason the word ‘simple’ is in inverted commas. Also the statement: if you try to make it ‘simple’. It’s a simple idea, an idea that simple people with simple minds might adopt. A simplism. An oversimplification.

Both things (the SC judgement and removing rights for women) are simple ideas , made my simple minds, oversimplifications. They are both shit ideas, wrong , unjust, nonsensical that will make society a lot worse and certainly not actually simpler.

It’s not the best written article , granted. But nonetheless all this is all fairly obvious if you aren’t ragingly transphobic.
So no excuse really for the malicious misrepresentation.

JHound · Today 14:41

I had to read the entire thing to find it and while her point is nonsensical (it is not clear how women not voting and not owning property would simplify society) she was trying to make a point.

She? Her? Are you referring to the person who wrote the risible article, or BungeeCord?

White is not female and it may be best not to assume the sex of posters here.

Yes, such totally male centric thinking. I am continually fascinated by people that visit threads with a view to stopping people discussing the topic at hand. It doesn’t occur to them that they could just scroll on past - they just want us to stop the conversation as they have run out of arguments (not that there were really any in the first place - hence ‘no debate’).

I am celebrating the fact however that the SC judgement has enabled a greater freedom for us to discuss these issues without being strangled by excessive language restraints that made it very challenging to highlight the actual problems. It means the power of the trans activists is slipping away.

It is a blatant lie. Studies have shown that only a small proportion of lesbians or gay men would consider an opposite sex trans person as part of their dating pool.

That post is a chef's kiss example of

1. disingenuous question
2. ensuring that the thing you are complaining about is perpetuated
3. sneering tone instead of solid counter-claim because you can't actually find anything factually wrong
4. misunderstanding of "straw-man' And 5) ultimate agreement with the op that the point is not valid.

Keep it up!

It is illuminating to see who doesn't see the problem with a mindset that sees women's equality as an optional add-on to a default male-only society.

I guess it's like fish having no word for water. So used to women being defined by reference to men that they don't even notice it or ever really think abot what that means.

Oh is this dogwhistle thread about a completely straw man non- point still going?

Who was? OP? RMW is a man so I’m not sure which she you are referring to if you don’t mean the OP?

This is a ridiculously clickbait post.
I had to read the entire thing to find it and while her point is nonsensical (it is not clear how women not voting and not owning property would simplify society) she was trying to make a point

Oh I’m all for a bit of simplification. Let’s start with simple biology. Humans can’t change sex.

Still, misogynists gotta misogynise - even when wearing woman’s clothing.

The most idiotic thing of all in this odd example of something that is supposed to exemplify something that is unfair but make society simpler

is that, whether it's toilets or the right to vote that is the reason that you need to discern consistently who is a man or woman, you still have the same problem.

If it's not simple to determine who is a woman for the purposes of prisons or loos, why would it "simplify society" to say woman also can't vote, or work, or whatever hypothetical policy you think would make things simple-but-not-fair...

you still run into the exact same problem of having to differentiate between men and women.

Robin is fundamentally unable to suggest a way of doing that.

So not only would saying "women can't own property" not be fair, it would still be at least as complicated as saying "women can't go in the men's loos".